Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil for the great work he has done as a firefighter, in supporting our veterans and for being an advocate for those who serve as first responders across the country. He knows all too well that we often hear a lot of words from the governing Liberals, but when it comes down to actual action, they always hug the thug. This is the unfortunate reality. That is the unfortunate reality. The most important role of a government is to protect its citizens. When it puts the rights of the criminal ahead of the victim's is when we have a problem.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to speak to Bill C-77, very important, though tardy and still incomplete, legislation. The last time there were major reforms in our military justice system was 1998, in what was then Bill C-25. At that time, Bill C-25 specified there would be a five-year review of those extensive reforms that had been mandated in law. That review was completed by the very distinguished former chief justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, Antonio Lamer, in September of 2003, 15 years ago.

The conclusion reached by Justice Lamer was that after five years of experience with the reformed justice system, it was generally “working well”, but he went on to say that it was, “not entirely without room for improvement”. That was a very moderate statement as Justice Lamer was wanting to make. He then submitted 88 recommendations for those improvements.

Justice Lamer made recommendations in three main areas: actions to increase the protection of the independence of military judges; actions to improve the grievance process within the Canadian military; and actions to address some major deficiencies in the overall military justice framework.

Now, here we are 15 years later and we are still dealing with important issues in this bill, a bill that was delayed three times by intervening elections. However, both the Liberal and Conservative governments, as we heard them tossing at each other earlier in this debate, have been slow to act on these important changes.

On the first recommendation of the independence of military justice, the Conservatives did act early in the last Parliament in a separate bill, which was then Bill C-16. This was dealt with on an urgent basis because a deadline had been set for changes regarding the independence of judges by the Court Martial Appeals Court decision in the case of R v. LeBlanc. This deadline was met with royal assent on November 29, 2001.

For me, there is the proof that we could have dealt with all of these things very expeditiously. There was a will in Parliament, the Conservatives had a majority and we could have gotten through all of these reforms seven years ago. However, all of the other recommendations had to wait.

When the Conservatives finally did introduce in the last Parliament Bill C-15, in October of 2011, it contained many, but not all, of the needed reforms. Even then, progress on the bill was slow. It took two years to pass through the previous Parliament and it only received second reading a year after it was introduced. The bill sat for an entire year without any motion, debate or effective action on it.

Finally, in May of 2013, the bill passed the House and, for once, the Senate did act expeditiously and the bill received royal assent in 2013. However, here is the kicker on this one. Most of the reforms mandated in the bill did not come into force until September 1 of this year. Therefore, even though the bill passed five years ago, it was only last month that its provisions came into effect, again 15 years after those reforms were recommended by former Justice Lamer.

Why is that the case? It is pretty simple. Our military justice system remains woefully under-resourced no matter whether Liberals or Conservatives have been the government.

Justice Lamer's recommendations specifically recognized four important principles to guide reform in the military justice system. His first was, “Maintaining discipline by the chain of command is essential to a competent and reliable military organization.” None of us in the House would disagree with that recommendation. It is important to keep in mind because, as my hon. friend from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman pointed out, there are times when the military justice system has to be faster and perhaps harsher than the civilian system.

His second principle was that it was necessary to recognize the particular context of the military justice system, meaning that we, “need to have a system that will properly operate under those special conditions that our men and women are placed in, often abroad, under conditions from peacekeeping to peace-making, in what is often a hostile environment, and indeed sometimes outright war.”

His third principle, perhaps one that is most important to me, is that those who risk their lives for our country deserve a military justice system that protects their rights in accordance with our charter, just like all other Canadians.

His fourth principle said that it was necessary to recognize, also an important point, that any doubts or lack of confidence in the military justice system may have negative impacts on morale as a result of concerns about injustice. The system has to be fair and be seen to be fair so it serves the interests of those who are risking their lives to serve our country.

Returning specifically to Bill C-77, New Democrats are supporting this bill at second reading, and we have recommended expediting this passage at all stages. After all, 15 years later, it is time to get this in gear.

Bill C-77 does complete most of the rest of the reforms to the military justice system that were first proposed under the former Conservative government, but unfortunately were left out when Bill C-15 was adopted in the last Parliament. I am not quite sure why it took the Liberals three years to get this bill before us, because the Conservatives had introduced essentially the same bill in the dying days of the last Parliament.

For me, the most important part of those reforms in Bill C-77 are those that add greater protections to victims in the military justice system. These were missing, they are missing, and these changes would align the military justice system with the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights. It is important not only that those who are accused are treated fairly, but that those who have been victims of the offences are also treated fairly in the military justice system.

As I said, this bill would implement most of the rest of the reforms first proposed under the former Harper government and would modernize the military justice system, but there are still some areas in which it is lacking. We believe there are two areas in which improvements could be made without undue delay to this bill.

One important provision in Bill C-77 is found in section 23(c.1). This section would allow military judges to take into account the circumstances of aboriginal offenders when determining sentencing. This change is obviously welcome, as it is in keeping with the Supreme Court Gladue decision of 1999 with regard to how the criminal justice system operates in the civilian realm.

However, we believe it is possible, given that this is 2018, nearly 20 years later, that we may be able to improve the wording of that section to allow greater clarification of its intentions and the impacts of this section.

The second improvement we would like to see involves the subject of my questions earlier to the minister and to the Conservative spokesperson. This is the omission of reform that would help deal with the serious problem of suicide within the Canadian military.

In October 2016, the government announced a suicide prevention strategy, a strategy with 160 provisions to address a problem that is very real in the Canadian Forces. We are still seeing one to two members of the Canadian Forces die by suicide each and every month. That is a total of more than 130 serving members who died by suicide from 2010 to the end of 2017.

When we are speaking just of serving members, obviously that excludes the very high rate of suicide among veterans, which the government was not even able to track when the report was issued in 2016. Today, we know at least 70 of those who served in the Afghanistan mission have died by suicide, some of those still in the military; some of those having retired and become veterans.

Self-harm is listed as an offence in section 98 of the National Defence Act. Three offences are included in that section 98. Section (a) deals with malingering, and obviously in a time of crisis, avoiding duties should be subject to discipline. The second, section (b), is dealing with aggravating disease or infirmity, and I question whether that is really a necessary inclusion, it seems a lot like malingering to me. It seems like it is repeating in (b) what it just said in (a).

It is the third section, section (c), that concerns me. It says that anyone who:

....wilfully maims or injures himself or any other person who is a member of any of Her Majesty’s Forces or of any forces cooperating therewith, whether at the instance of that person or not, with intent thereby to render himself or that other person unfit for service, or causes himself to be maimed or injured by any person with intent thereby to render himself unfit for service, is guilty of an offence....

Section 98, as a whole, goes on to set the possible penalties for self-harm as up to life imprisonment.

I ask members to think about individuals serving in the armed forces and suffering from mental health issues and needing help. Are they likely to go forward to their commanding officer and say that they are about to commit a disciplinary offence? This is an obstacle to getting the treatment those people need. It is a matter of human compassion. It is also a matter of getting help so that Canadian Forces members who have been trained, invested in and are part of a team can remain effective. Therefore, it is not only a moral question, it is also very much an efficiency question in the military.

This is a major obstacle, as I said, to serving members' seeking help, and omitting this section would have no impact on or injury to other serving members. The minister's response to my question seemed to implicate that there was some problem in omitting this section, but I would assert, and will bring forward some witnesses at committee, that harm to other serving members is already covered in other sections of the code of conduct so that this section on self-harm or asking someone to harm them or someone else really does not need to be there. All of those possible behaviours they could think of that the minister seemed concerned about are actually covered somewhere else.

I want to speak for a moment about a tragic case that I know best, and that is of Corporal Stuart Langridge, whose family I have come to know well, as they reside in my riding. Corporal Langridge twice attempted suicide while he was a serving member. He failed the first two times, but he did not seek the help that he needed. His family firmly believe that this section that makes it an offence was part of the reason that he did not seek help. Therefore, this section making it a disciplinary offence hindered rather than helped their son and, unfortunately, on his third attempt he succeeded and died by suicide. This led to an unfortunate attempt to cover up the details of his case, but that is not the topic here today and I do want to set that aside. The goal here is removing, as I have heard from families, from veterans and from serving members, a major obstacle to those who need help with serious mental health issues in getting the help they need. Making self-harm an offence is clearly a relic of old thinking about the scourge of suicide that continues to plague not only our military but this entire country.

One last major reform that was not dealt with in Bill C-16, Bill C-15 and in this current bill, Bill C-77 is that of the right to trial by jury. We had, as was noted earlier in the debate, a Court Martial Appeal Court ruling last week, which ruled that civil offences are not offences under military law if they are not connected to military duties, an oversimplification of the case, in the case of Master Corporal Beaudry. The government has appealed that decision, which was a split decision in the court, and has requested a stay of that decision until the Supreme Court can hear the case. The military justice head prosecutor, Bruce MacGregor, has said that this potentially affects about half the caseload of the military justice system. I am not going to take a position today on what the proper decision in that case should be. That is the job of the Supreme Court, not politicians. However, we can all recognize today that there may be further work needed if that decision is upheld by the courts.

Experts like retired judge Gilles Letourneau and the highly skilled lawyer from Montreal, Michel Drapeau, have argued that this is a question of fundamental rights, and that it will not affect military discipline. However, there have been concerns raised on the other side about the slowness of the civilian justice system and whether it can fully consider the context in which those crimes might occur.

My biggest concern is that this ruling raises questions of the ultimate disposition of sexual assault cases that were originally declared unfounded by the military police. The military police recently announced that 23 of those cases will be reopened for investigation. I am concerned about that because if this decision stands and those cases are transferred to the civilian system, they might fall under the time limits set in the 2016 Jordan decision, resulting in a dismissal because of unnecessary delays. Those are very complicated implications that we have yet to see play out from this court decision.

Let me say once again that the NDP believes that Bill C-77 should pass expeditiously, and we will support it. However, in doing so, we should not neglect the opportunity to make some improvements, most importantly, to remove self-harm as an offence in the military code of conduct.

Finally, let me restate the importance of these improvements to our military justice system. They are important to discipline, they are important to morale, and they are important as a right of those who serve.

Members of the Canadian Armed Forces are held to a high standard of discipline, therefore, their judicial system should also reflect that high standard. Those who risk their lives for our country should not be denied their charter rights when facing trial.

Other countries have recognized this issue and changed their processes. It is time for Canada to catch up in this area. It is past time that we take the necessary steps toward ensuring that our military justice system ranks as a model system and a system of which members of the Canadian Armed Forces can be justifiably proud.

Bill C-77 takes important steps forward, but there is still more work left to be done.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity over the past few years to substitute on the defence committee a few times and I know that the hon. member is a passionate advocate for members for the Canadian Armed Forces. I want to thank him for bringing up the story of a corporal to show us some of the issues that may exist in the bill. I appreciate his support of the bill. It sounds as though in his mind he thinks there is still a little work that needs to be done.

Could the member address this place on how best to get the bill to committee so we can get to work on the important issues that still remain?

Mr. Speaker, I cited the case of Corporal Langridge, but there are 130 cases since 2010 that are equally tragic and equally important.

How can we best do this? I am expecting there have been discussions among the parties that this debate may finish today and therefore will have a vote within a couple of days to send this on to committee. I know that we have a commitment of the chair of the defence committee that this bill will be dealt with expeditiously.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the work he is doing with military family members who have dealt with the loss of someone because of self-harm. It is something that we have to address and this is the time to do it.

My colleague mentioned the Beaudry ruling and how that is going to impact on the armed forces. We are looking at a stay of proceedings in the interim, but would this be the time that we could address some of those concerns that have been raised by the courts including the Court Martial Appeal Court and provide more clarity within the bill on how we deal with sexual misconduct? If these cases all get transferred to civilian court, and there are over 40 of them, it will not only bog down civilian courts, but it will not be dealt with in an appropriate amount of time under the military justice system.

Should we amend the bill to provide greater clarity and direction to ensure that the exemption under the charter in section 11(f) is respected and is very well articulated so that judges and lawyers within the court martial system will understand what Parliament's desire is on this piece of legislation?

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to work with the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman as the Conservative spokesperson on the defence committee. While we do not always agree, we certainly both have the best interests of the serving members of the Canadian Armed Forces and of Canada at heart. I trust him on that implicitly.

As to his question on the Beaudry decision, this just happened on Friday, so I believe, although I do not know for sure, that a stay would be granted and this case will be heard by the Supreme Court.

Today, I have to say that I am not sure that this is a good time for us to try to amend Bill C-77, until we see what the Supreme Court of Canada has to say.

I agree with the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. Because it was a split decision, it is not inevitable that the Supreme Court would reach the same conclusions that the military court of appeal did. I would be cautious at this point about taking legislative action until we hear from the Supreme Court.

Kevin LamoureuxLiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, it is really encouraging to the New Democrat and Conservative sides' recognition of the importance of this legislation. For those participating in the debate and those watching and listening in, it has been a while since we have seen these type of changes. We have seen wide support for it demonstrated. I would like my colleague's thoughts on how important it is to advance this to the committee stage where we can start to hear more details and possible amendments. Does he have any suggestions for amendments to the legislation once it gets to committee?

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what changes the hon. member is referring to, because I have been in the House since 2011 demanding that we move expeditiously in making changes to the military justice system. My position has never changed. This should have been done by the Conservative government before, and it should have been done before now by this government. Therefore, I certainly will not stand in the way of this getting to committee as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague the same question I asked the minister a little earlier. The minister talked a bit about the summary hearings and their importance. He felt they would speed up hearings and allow military discipline to proceed more quickly than it has in the past. Does the member feel that that is accurate? I am also interested in asking him the same question about the evidentiary requirements for the summary hearings. What level does he feel they should be at in order to protect a soldier so that we do not find innocent people being charged and held accountable for things they are not responsible for?

Mr. Speaker, what we have here are important reforms that would restrict the use of summary trials and require better investigation and better production of evidence to be used in the more formal proceedings that are likely to occur.

There are good things in Bill C-77. These measures were originally proposed by the previous Conservative government, and I am not sure why it took this government three years to get them before the House.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague on the defence committee. One of the things that would be amended is the protection of the privacy and security of victims and witnesses involving certain sexual offences. What is being proposed in the process is protection in summary convictions. With the hiding of the name of the predator, not letting other people in the same community know the name or the fact that one of these investigations is going on, does my colleague have concerns about the victims in these circumstances?

Mr. Speaker, I have enjoyed working with the member on the defence committee. I am not sure I understand her particular question. Within the military, as such a close community, until there is some resolution of sexual assault or harassment kinds of cases, there may be good reasons why names are not made public to the larger community. It could be for the coherence of the military or for the necessity of working as a team. However, I believe there are provisions in the bill that would allow military judges to make those kinds of decisions. That is one of the improvements in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his advocacy on behalf of veterans and serving military members. How would the bill, in his opinion, improve the chain of command's ability to address minor breaches of discipline?

Mr. Speaker, in the military context, minor breaches of discipline are still breaches of discipline. That is one of the instances where the military context differs from the civilian context. We have to make sure that the system is fair in dealing with those. We have to ensure that appropriate disciplinary measures are taken, but also keep in mind that the military context is somewhat different from the broader public context.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-77, an act to amend the National Defence Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. I will be sharing my time with the member for Simcoe—Grey.

Canada and its justice system are renowned around the world. The previous Conservative government continually showed its resolve to support victims of crime by steadfastly taking actions that ensured that those victims had a more effective voice in the criminal justice system. How did we do that?

I think the important point is that the previous Conservative government enacted the Victims Bill of Rights. It did so to assure victims of crime that they would be assured that their government had their backs. As Conservatives we chose to listen to our constituents when it came to keeping our streets safe, because the public's safety then and always will be our number one concern.

During that time we also recognized the importance of enshrining victims' rights in the military justice system, which is why we introduced Bill C-71 in the previous Parliament. I assume that as Conservatives we should be flattered that the Liberals are copying many of our initiatives with Bill C-77. After all, it is the right thing to do.

When it comes to military justice reform, the previous Conservative government focused on restoring victims to their rightful place at the heart of our justice system. That is why we introduced legislation that mirrored the Victims Bill of Rights and put it into military law. It was the result of several years of work, and took into account hundreds of submissions and consultations held with victims and groups concerned about victims' rights.

Standing up for victims means helping to ensure that they have a more effective voice in the justice system and are treated with the courtesy, compassion and respect they deserve at every stage of the criminal process. Conservative are committed to keeping our streets and communities safe for Canadians and their families. We took decisive, concrete steps to hold offenders accountable for their actions, which are sadly being slowly eroded by the actions of these Liberals. However, it also means that we need to have a fair system for the accused.

The intention of this bill is to make changes to the Canadian military justice system. This bill is similar in many respects to our previous Conservative government's military justice reform Bill C-71. The purpose of Bill C-71 was to align the military justice system of Canada with the Criminal Code of Canada. It would have enshrined victims' rights into the National Defence Act, as well as put a statute of limitations on summary trial cases and clarified what cases should be handled by summary trial. Bill C-77 will institute these changes as well.

However, there are other differences between Bill C-71 and Bill C-77. The first difference is the addition of the Gladue decision in relation to paragraph 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code of Canada, putting it into the National Defence Act. Members of the Canadian Armed Forces should not be discriminated against based on their race, gender, creed or culture. However, special consideration for indigenous members in the Gladue decision that would result in sentences that are less harsh for them than other Canadian Armed Forces members could undermine operational discipline, morale and anti-racism policies. It is important that we reflect on this issue by considering the global context of the engagement of our men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces.

Most countries with effective armed forces use some kind of court martial or other military court system. These court or military court systems can vary significantly from one country to another. However, they all tend to have one thing in common: They provide for trials of charges where there are allegations that military personnel have committed offences.

The Canadian miliary justice system was essentially identical to the British military justice system until the end of World War II. In 1950, new Canadian legislation known as the National Defence Act, or the NDA, was enacted, which provided for a single Code of Service Discipline. The NDA also provided for trials by two different types of service tribunals: court martials and summary trials.

Since the enactment of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982, the courts martial system has evolved and now offers more protections for the charter rights of accused persons, particularly at court martials. However, court martials are distinctly military. The judge is a legally trained officer in the Canadian Armed Forces who is appointed by the Governor in Council. The prosecutor is a uniformed legal officer who acts on behalf of the DMP. The trial involves customary military formalities, such as saluting the military judge when he or she enters the court.

Court martials have jurisdiction to deal with military personnel for any offence under the Code of Service Discipline, including uniquely military offences such as desertion and insubordination, as well as other underlying federal offences such as theft under the Criminal Code and possession of a drug under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

Even though members of the Canadian Armed Forces are held to the highest standards of conduct, they do not give up the rights afforded to them under Canadian law, including under the Constitution. Nonetheless, an individual's rights can be limited where they are inconsistent with the basic obligations of military service.

The charter recognizes the existence of a separate system of military justice within the Canadian legal system. Section 11of the charter states:

Any person charged with an offence has the right

...(f) Except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment.

Our Canadian Armed Forces, as they work shoulder to shoulder with our allies, must be consistent. Special consideration for indigenous members that could result in sentences that are less harsh versus for them versus for Canadian Armed Forces members could undermine operational discipline, morale, and anti-racism policies.

As we think of potential amendments, I hope there will be an opportunity at during committee stage to amend the language regarding the addition of the Gladue decision into the National Defence Act.

It should be stated that the Supreme Court of Canada has directly addressed the validity of a separate, distinct military justice system in three decisions wherein the requirement for a separate justice system for the Canadian Armed Forces has been upheld.

We support our Canadian justice system as defined by our charter and Constitution, and do not support a parallel justice system that would contravene our existing rights and freedoms and would have the potential of creating issues among our own Canadian Forces members and our allies.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across the way and I have served on committees together. I have always found his comments to be very thoughtful.

Along those lines, I am looking at the sentencing of indigenous people under civil law and their having the same rights under military law as under civil law, such that indigenous rights at the time of sentencing would take into account some of the provisions we have for indigenous peoples in terms of the types of sentencing they might fall under according to their traditions and culture.

Would the member not agree that we should have the same type of rights in civil society as we do in military society when we are working with indigenous peoples?

Mr. Speaker, I too have enjoyed working with my colleague on various committees.

A key point of this is that we are dealing with culture. I understand and respect the position that the Gladue decision has made in the general public, but we are talking about a military culture. That was the point I was stressing.

Our men and women work shoulder to shoulder with armed forces around the world when they are on operational duties, and it is critical that everyone that is with them is subject to the same set of rules. That means that we have to make sure that we have cohesion. That is the respect that we need to consider.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right that this has been a long time in the making and has taken quite a while to get us to where we are today. If credit is due, then I would congratulate the former Conservative government for getting this to the point where at least it can be picked up and continued.

Would he agree that it is in the best interests of the House to pass this bill through this stage so that it can go to committee to be studied, reported back and moved along the legislative process quickly so that this bill can be enshrined in law as soon as possible?

Mr. Speaker, it is extremely important, since we have an opportunity today, in whatever length of time this discussion is going to take place, to talk about the issues of concern so that when it gets to committee, we will be able to build upon that. I know there has been a lot of consultation over the years to make sure that we deal with the issues, some that I have presented. I know that the hon. member from the NDP presented issues that were important to New Democrats as well. As we move through the process, I am sure those at committee will be able to succinctly do what they need to do to get this particular bill out of committee and back to the House.

Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend spoke specifically about consistency as it relates to the potential of undermining discipline with our allies and the view on that. What are some of the things he is going to be looking for when the bill goes to committee in terms of the types of changes required for this piece of legislation?

Mr. Speaker, I have learned a lot by listening to my hon. colleague with regard to the military and veterans, and that is really important. The summary talks about the declaration of victims rights, which is a paramount issue, and also about a dozen different items to protect privacy and the security of victims and witnesses and factors the military judges have to take into consideration. I believe that the good people at committee will be able to look at that and bring all of this discussion together, keeping in mind the significance of the fact that our Canadian Armed Forces serve around the world to protect everyone.

Mr. Speaker, there is much to like about Bill C-77, which will modernize Canada's military justice system through changes to the National Defence Act. Let me point out that much of Bill C-77 is actually a carbon copy of the former Conservative government's Bill C-71, which was introduced in June of 2015 and defeated here. It never made second reading.

As Canadians are well aware, Conservatives, more than any party, are committed to standing up for the victims of crime and to ensuring that victims have a strong voice in the criminal justice system. It is why we were the party that enacted the Victims Bill of Rights and why the concept of victims' rights was front and centre when we drafted Bill C-71 to ensure that victims also had rights within the military justice system.

As the government's Bill C-77 is based on so much of Bill C-71, I can say with confidence that it benefits from the years of work put in by the previous government to ensure that it was done right. There were hundreds of submissions and consultations held with victims and organizations dedicated to victims' rights in the preparation of that bill. Our legislation proposed that a victims liaison officer be appointed to help victims access information. New safety, security and privacy provisions were proposed to improve the protection of victims. Impact statements at sentencing were included to improve participation, and court martials would have been required to consider making a restitution order for losses. I am happy to see that the Liberals have kept these key points in the bill. Putting the rights of victims back at the heart of the justice system was a priority of our government. Bill C-71 was a serious piece of legislation that focused on modernizing the military justice system by enshrining victims' rights. I am pleased that Bill C-77 does the same.

Military justice is not something many Canadians are very familiar with, as it was and is used only by the Canadian Armed Forces. Most countries with effective armed forces use some kind of court martial or other military court system. Our system comes from the British and was virtually identical to that system until 1950, when new Canadian legislation, known as the National Defence Act, was enacted. Changes to the court martial system have happened steadily and incrementally over the years through legislative amendments by multiple Canadian governments.

In Canada, we have a two-tier tribunal structure in our military justice system. The summary trial is the most common. It allows less serious offences to be tried at the unit level. The other and more formal form of service tribunal is the court martial. The main purpose of a court martial is to support the government's ability to effectively employ its armed forces whenever and wherever necessary.

People ask what this actually means. Why is there a different system? The Supreme Court of Canada has supported the court martial system and its differences in operation versus civilian courts.

In R. v. Généreux, in 1992, the court ruled:

The purpose of a separate system of military tribunals is to allow the Armed Forces to deal with matters that pertain directly to the discipline, efficiency and morale of the military. The safety and well-being of Canadians depends considerably on the willingness and readiness of a force of men and women to defend against threats to the nation's security. To maintain the Armed Forces in a state of readiness, the military must be in a position to enforce internal discipline effectively and efficiently. Breaches of military discipline must be dealt with speedily and, frequently, punished more severely than would be the case if a civilian engaged in such conduct.

Further, it found:

The existence of a parallel system of military law and tribunals, for the purpose of enforcing discipline in the military, is deeply entrenched in our history and is supported by the compelling principles....

Similarly, in 1980, in MacKay v. the Queen, the Supreme Court noted:

When the National Defence Act is considered as a whole it will be seen that it encompasses the rules of discipline necessary to the maintenance of morale and efficiency among troops in training and at the same time envisages conditions under which service offences may be committed outside of Canada by service personnel stationed abroad.... In my view these are some of the factors which make it apparent that a separate code of discipline administered within the services is an essential ingredient of service life.

The men and women in uniform are held to a higher standard than the rest of us. They maintain that standard with pride and professionalism. The men in my family who served in the armed forces are some of the most dedicated, proper and honourable individuals I have ever known. My grandfather Conway served in the Canadian Army, and my two great-uncles, Jim and Doug Johnson, served in the Royal Canadian Navy. All served in the Second World War. They carried themselves in life as they did in service, at the higher standard they learned in the services, and they would expect no less.

Serving as the member of Parliament for Simcoe—Grey since 2011, I have been honoured to represent some of the greatest Canadians there are: those serving at Canadian Forces Base Borden. CFB Borden has been a focal point in our region since it opened in July 1916. First known as Camp Borden, it was named after Sir Frederick Borden, Canada's minister of militia and defence, our first, from 1896 to 1911. It continues to play a critical role in Canada's military structure.

In 1917, Camp Borden was selected as the location for the Royal Flying Corps Canada, and an aerodrome for the RCAF was built, thereby becoming the birthplace of the Royal Canadian Air Force. Camp Borden's training area was expanded in 1938 and became home to the Canadian Tank School.

In 1940, several other wartime schools followed: the Canadian Infantry Training Centre, the Canadian Army Service Corps Training Centre, the Canadian Army Medical Corps Training Centre, and the Canadian Provost Corps Training Centre. The Cold War brought more schools to CAF Base Borden, including the Canadian Forces School of Administration and Logistics as well as the Canadian Forces Health Services Training Centre. In 1968, Camp Borden and RCAF Station Borden officially merged into CFB Borden.

As a physician, I am particularly pleased that the Canadian Forces Health Services Training Centre is located at CFB Borden. I have had many opportunities to meet the dedicated medical professionals who tend to those who keep us safe every day. In fact, one of the highlights of my public service was my 2010 trip to Afghanistan as part of a CIDA medical mission in which I worked with a number of the same soldiers who trained at Base Borden.

Also located at CFB Borden is the centre that has particular relevance to the bill we are discussing today, the Canadian Forces Military Police Academy. Much as our police forces across the country enforce the rules of law, the military police are responsible for doing the same under the military justice system.

The academy at CFB Borden trains military police, who then serve across the country and around the world as part of NATO and UN operations as well as at Canadian high commissions and embassies. I know that they will welcome the work that has gone into this bill.

It is really a privilege to represent the men and women of CFB Borden. It has been an honour to attend Remembrance Days and other ceremonies with them. I am also pleased to have played a part in securing investments at the base. I treasure the relationships I have developed with specific soldiers who serve there.

When we talk about our open democracy, these are the soldiers who protect it. They are the ones who ensure that we get to live in a kind and generous society. They are the ones who guard our freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedoms that individuals in other places around this globe may not enjoy.

I want to thank the men and women at Base Borden, those serving in the armed forces today and those who have served. I thank them for their service, their dedication, and their willingness to put their lives on the line to protect the lives of other Canadians as well as our Canadian democracy.

I am happy that the Liberals took so much of our work on Bill C-71, as we consulted extensively across the country with the military community. I am prepared to support this bill at second reading.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her speech and for telling us about Camp Borden and how proud she is to be representing those individuals, as many of us on this side of the House are.

I am very proud of representing those in the Lincoln and Welland Regiment, and because of that, I want to see this bill get to committee as quickly as possible. The hon. members in the NDP suggested some potential amendments. They are supportive. The Conservatives are supportive. The government is supportive. Would the hon. member call on this House to call the question and get this to committee as quickly as possible so that she can help her constituents at Camp Borden?

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, I am supportive of this bill going to second reading, in particular because of the work, as I mentioned, done by a government I served in, a Conservative government that put forward Bill C-71, a bill that truly looked at making sure that the victim came first and that enshrined the principles of the Victims Bill of Rights.

I look forward to it going to committee and contemplating those amendments members and colleagues from the NDP put forward but also those the Conservatives may put forward as well.

Mr. Speaker, does my colleague really believe the Liberals are serious about this bill and about victims rights? Over the last week or so in the House, particularly in question period, we have had some heated exchanges about the Liberals' failure to represent victims fairly across the country.

Therefore, does she feel they are serious about the bill and seeing it through or does she expect that when we do get it passed at second reading and it goes to committee, we will see the Liberals begin to play some of the same games we have seen them play on other issues, particularly Tori Stafford, Chris Garnier and those kinds of things?